Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
QF/JQ Aircraft Grounded For Cash, Not Ash  
User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12339 posts, RR: 18
Posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 12868 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

"Qantas and Jetstar played the safety card in blaming ash clouds from a Chilean volcano for grounding all flights, but in reality the decision not to fly came down to earnings, an analyst says

Air New Zealand, which continued to fly, says it is considering investing in an ash-detecting aircraft.

While the Australian national carrier and its budget offshoot, plus Pacific Blue, left thousands of passengers stranded at airports on both sides of the Tasman, when the ash plume passed over the region earlier this month and again last week, Air New Zealand flew on. All flights returned to normal yesterday afternoon

Air New Zealand was also losing money in the second half of the year, but its domestic networks were highly profitable, Mr Mercer said. That explained the desire to keep flying, even though cruising at much lower altitudes to stay clear of the ash added about 10 per cent in fuel costs for its jets. "


http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indu...-grounded-for-cash-not-ash-analyst

45 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinetruemanQLD From Australia, joined Feb 2007, 1596 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 12687 times:

To start with, this is a load of garbage! If the extra 10% of fuel cost makes all the NZ flying unprofitable, QF would have pulled NZ flights year ago. I know we will have the skeptics on here, and the QF-haters who will disagree with this but anyway - the biggest reason QF didnt fly is for safety!

User currently offlinekiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8626 posts, RR: 13
Reply 2, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 12595 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Regardless of the real reason for cancellation 'safety'or bottom line, I think that this decision will cost them in the longer term, particularly Jetstar, a lot of pax have fondness for QF and are willing to forgive them, but I have to say that I think a lot of people who fly the Tasman will think long and hard before ever buying a ticket with Jetstar again.


In a number of cases JQ have blatantly lied to New Zealand based customers advising that even if JQ didn't fly them anywhere they cannot have a refund of their airfare but only get a travel credit for future use instead. This is a flagrant breach of the Consumer Guarantees Act - if a merchant fails to provide the service you have paid for you are entitled to a full refund regardless of whether the cancellation was due to 'safety' or some other reason. I know quite a few people who will be going back to their credit card companies to arrange chargebacks in response to this deceitful line from JQ.



Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
User currently offlineOzGlobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 2732 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 12437 times:

Quoting 777ER (Thread starter):
"Qantas and Jetstar played the safety card in blaming ash clouds from a Chilean volcano for grounding all flights, but in reality the decision not to fly came down to earnings, an analyst says

Air New Zealand, which continued to fly, says it is considering investing in an ash-detecting aircraft.

While the Australian national carrier and its budget offshoot, plus Pacific Blue, left thousands of passengers stranded at airports on both sides of the Tasman, when the ash plume passed over the region earlier this month and again last week, Air New Zealand flew on. All flights returned to normal yesterday afternoon

Small town New Zealand jingoism. Quite pitiful really. I'm sure it gets a chear in the local market, a story like this, but it is non-news and nothing more than a maifestation of an ongoing inferiority complex surfacing at any given opportunity.

A much more interesting story would be about progress made in determining safe levels of ash and on detection technology.



When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
User currently offlineaerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 7392 posts, RR: 16
Reply 4, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 12147 times:

circumstantial evidence from monitoring loads of the various carriers indicates there may well have been that potential revenue over that period was not enough to justify the extra expenses of operating with extra fuel, no cargo etc, but that it was only a contributing factor not the only one.

I suspect it was more that once the decision was made early on - and been so vocal about NZ etc being unsafe, they had nowhere else to go except grim and bare it till the end.


User currently offlineaerokiwi From New Zealand, joined Jul 2000, 2745 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 12092 times:

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 3):
Small town New Zealand jingoism. Quite pitiful really. I'm sure it gets a chear in the local market, a story like this, but it is non-news and nothing more than a maifestation of an ongoing inferiority complex surfacing at any given opportunity.

Wow. Way to totally miss that mark. What exactly are you talking about? "Small town jingoism"? "Inferiority complex"? How does any of this relate to aviation? Especially given it was one analyst's opinion, and one that was slightly misread, in my opinion.

Non news - really? Domestic services grounded by one airline for over a week while the competitor flies almost disruption-free. I think people are very interested to know why. If it's a policy of QF/JQ, then it should be disclosed to consumers. If it's a function of a lack of pilot training to fly at lower levels, or lower spec aircraft than what's normal on the domestic market, I think passengers should be alerted to this.

Hopefully your attitude doesn't reflect that of QF/JQ and they're having a seriously hard look at themselves over this. Because I can assure you that they've lost a HUGE amount of goodwill in the market here. Their credibility is shot.


User currently offlineEDICHC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 12092 times:

Quoting truemanQLD (Reply 1):
the biggest reason QF didnt fly is for safety!

So are you saying that Air NZ were operating unsafely then?


User currently offlinetruemanQLD From Australia, joined Feb 2007, 1596 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 11884 times:

Quoting EDICHC (Reply 6):
So are you saying that Air NZ were operating unsafely then?

No, but they are taking a bigger risk than Qantas is. I would feel better having to wait for a few days and know that I will be flying than taking the risk, even if it was very small. The whole notion is ridiculous, QF has done the right thing and put people's safety as No.1 priority and are being criticised for it.


User currently offlineNZ747 From New Zealand, joined Dec 2004, 967 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 11628 times:

Quoting truemanQLD (Reply 7):
The whole notion is ridiculous, QF has done the right thing and put people's safety as No.1 priority and are being criticised for it.

So if Qantas was so concerned about 'people's safety', why were they happy to transfer their passengers to other airlines such as Virgin and Air NZ during the ash disruption?


User currently offlinetruemanQLD From Australia, joined Feb 2007, 1596 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 11481 times:

Quoting NZ747 (Reply 8):
why were they happy to transfer their passengers to other airlines such as Virgin and Air NZ during the ash disruption?

Correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that QF gave full refunds and allowed passengers to chose to fly on those airlines. I could be wrong however


User currently offlineOzGlobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 2732 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 11285 times:

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 5):
Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 3):
Small town New Zealand jingoism. Quite pitiful really. I'm sure it gets a chear in the local market, a story like this, but it is non-news and nothing more than a maifestation of an ongoing inferiority complex surfacing at any given opportunity.

Wow. Way to totally miss that mark. What exactly are you talking about? "Small town jingoism"? "Inferiority complex"? How does any of this relate to aviation? Especially given it was one analyst's opinion, and one that was slightly misread, in my opinion.

Non news - really? Domestic services grounded by one airline for over a week while the competitor flies almost disruption-free. I think people are very interested to know why. If it's a policy of QF/JQ, then it should be disclosed to consumers. If it's a function of a lack of pilot training to fly at lower levels, or lower spec aircraft than what's normal on the domestic market, I think passengers should be alerted to this.

Isn't it obvious? A NZ paper, champions its local carrier as a noble, enterprising and trasparent operator, whilst the big bad arrogant neighbour is either dishonest, unenterprising, anti-customer or all three and worse. This reading of situation is what I am calling, "Small town jingoism".



When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
User currently offlineCaptainCrackers From Italy, joined May 2010, 140 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 11214 times:

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 10):
Isn't it obvious? A NZ paper, champions its local carrier as a noble, enterprising and trasparent operator, whilst the big bad arrogant neighbour is either dishonest, unenterprising, anti-customer or all three and worse.

Both this newspaper and all the others give NZ regular negative coverage. Let's have a look: Just from June, there's this piece denouncing a failed marketing campaign, this piece criticising fare levels, and this piece outlining NZ's recent slip in rankings.

Still want to claim bias towards NZ?


User currently offlineEDICHC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 10814 times:

Quoting truemanQLD (Reply 7):
No, but they are taking a bigger risk than Qantas is.

Just how do you possibly account for this? What risk were NZ taking? They were not operating flights through the ash cloud they were operating below it. Taking a hit of 10% higher fuel consumption, NZ elected to operate at less than optimum altitude for fuel economy rather than inconvenience passengers.

Economic risk...possibly, safety risk..really are you serious?


User currently offline747m8te From Australia, joined Aug 2008, 456 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 10561 times:

Quoting truemanQLD (Reply 7):
No, but they are taking a bigger risk than Qantas is. I would feel better having to wait for a few days and know that I will be flying than taking the risk, even if it was very small. The whole notion is ridiculous, QF has done the right thing and put people's safety as No.1 priority and are being criticised for it.

Spot on! QF gave a very good letter to their frequent flyers which explained the reasons quite clearly for suspending services, about how we have no way of measuring the density and exact area of the ash clouds.

And also...it wasn't JUST QF/JQ! also, China Airlines and Pacific Blue flights to New Zealand and the Virgin Australia and Tiger Airways flights when the ash cloud was moving across Australia...so why aim this notion just to QF when other large airlines also stopped services.

And again this notion that stopping services would save money is rubbish, the fact that the extra expense of staffing, refunds, organising hotels, transfers etc and loss of revenue from not operating the flights...this is all an expensive exercise!

Quoting truemanQLD (Reply 9):
Quoting NZ747 (Reply 8):
why were they happy to transfer their passengers to other airlines such as Virgin and Air NZ during the ash disruption?

Correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that QF gave full refunds and allowed passengers to chose to fly on those airlines. I could be wrong however

Correct again   All the airlines that suspended services QF/JQ/DJ/CI were not transfering passengers to other airlines (and how can they transfer pax to Virgin when they weren't flying either???)...they weren't even sending paxing crew on other airlines!

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 3):
A much more interesting story would be about progress made in determining safe levels of ash and on detection technology.

  



Flown on:DHC8Q200,DHC8Q400,EMB145,E170,E190,A320,A332,A333,A343,A380,MD80,B733,B734,B737,B738,B743,B744,B744ER,B762,B763
User currently offlinenascarnut From New Zealand, joined Oct 2008, 301 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 8814 times:

JQ have cancelled their CHC and ZQN flights for 29th June from approx 1200 ex CHC and all flights for ZQN for the day. Running a bus CHC-ZQN to move passengers

Ash projected over bottom half of South Island above 20,000 feet.


User currently offlineAirvan00 From Australia, joined Oct 2008, 758 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 8565 times:

Quoting EDICHC (Reply 6):
So are you saying that Air NZ were operating unsafely then?

I am. I saw them fly thru the airspace that was designated by the VACC. One more carrier to add to my never to fly again list.


User currently offlineOzGlobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 2732 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 8544 times:

Quoting CaptainCrackers (Reply 11):
Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 10):
Isn't it obvious? A NZ paper, champions its local carrier as a noble, enterprising and trasparent operator, whilst the big bad arrogant neighbour is either dishonest, unenterprising, anti-customer or all three and worse.

Both this newspaper and all the others give NZ regular negative coverage. Let's have a look: Just from June, there's this piece denouncing a failed marketing campaign, this piece criticising fare levels, and this piece outlining NZ's recent slip in rankings.

Still want to claim bias towards NZ?

The references you give carry weight, so I am willing to withdraw the accusation against the paper in general;

...less so against the OP in particular.



When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
User currently offlinetruemanQLD From Australia, joined Feb 2007, 1596 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 7278 times:

QF has came out and said they can not guarantee 100% that flying will be safe as they dont know they exact position of the ash cloud etc, so I would be interested to know how NZ did...

User currently offlineEDICHC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 5051 times:

Quoting Airvan00 (Reply 15):
I am. I saw them fly thru the airspace that was designated by the VACC. One more carrier to add to my never to fly again list.

You did? Interesting, just how did you manage that? I think you will find that you saw them fly BELOW the area designated. Still if you insist never to fly NZ again that is your loss.


User currently offlineDavidByrne From New Zealand, joined Sep 2007, 1669 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 4771 times:

Addressing the economic arguments, and comparing NZ with JQ:

JQ operates on a shoestring and depends on doing so to make the profits that they apparently make. My analysis is that because their margins are low, any increase in fuel cost will make JQ unprofitable before it makes NZ unprofitable because fuel for JQ is presumably a larger portion of their overall budget than NZ's.

On the other hand, I'm picking that NZ made the calculation that it could burn 10% more fuel and increase revenue by more than enough to cover the increased costs because of the additional pax transferring from other carriers - many of whom were paying top whack for their new tickets.

As for QF - they could have done the same as NZ, but chose not to. Don't understand that . . .

What I'm unclear about is why 3K cancelled its SIN-AKL-SIN flights - in the first days of the ash cloud anyway. Anyone know the answer to this?



This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
User currently offlineAirvan00 From Australia, joined Oct 2008, 758 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 4596 times:

Quoting EDICHC (Reply 18):
You did? Interesting, just how did you manage that? I think you will find that you saw them fly BELOW the area designated.

Definitely no below. I'm sure that 90% of people on a.net know how to see in real time the position and altitude of aircraft.
All the carriers that were flying were at FL160 or F180. ANZ and one other carrier were at FL310 and FL330 in the designated area. I assume it was a calculated risk. Someone will count the beans and see if there is any engine maintenance cost and determine if it was worth it.


User currently offlinedanfearn77 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2008, 1818 posts, RR: 8
Reply 21, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 4135 times:

Quoting truemanQLD (Reply 1):
To start with, this is a load of garbage! If the extra 10% of fuel cost makes all the NZ flying unprofitable, QF would have pulled NZ flights year ago. I know we will have the skeptics on here, and the QF-haters who will disagree with this but anyway - the biggest reason QF didnt fly is for safety!

My understanding was it's not always 10% more expensive to fly in New Zealand, but as a one off during this ash crisis flying at lower altitudes increased fuel burn thus increasing fuel consumption/costs? Now it's back to normal this won't be the case I presume.



Eagles may soar high, but weasels dont get sucked into jet engines!
User currently offlinetruemanQLD From Australia, joined Feb 2007, 1596 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3804 times:

Quoting danfearn77 (Reply 21):
My understanding was it's not always 10% more expensive to fly in New Zealand, but as a one off during this ash crisis flying at lower altitudes increased fuel burn thus increasing fuel consumption/costs? Now it's back to normal this won't be the case I presume.

I know, but I am saying if the difference between the routes being profitable and unprofitable is an extra 10% fuel burn, QF/JQ wouldnt be operating the routes


User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12339 posts, RR: 18
Reply 23, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3744 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting truemanQLD (Reply 7):

NZ was getting advice on safe flying levels from both the CAA and New Zealand's weather service as well as their own flying department

[quote=OzGlobal,reply=16]Quoting CaptainCrackers (Reply 11):
Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 10):
Isn't it obvious? A NZ paper, champions its local carrier as a noble, enterprising and trasparent operator, whilst the big bad arrogant neighbour is either dishonest, unenterprising, anti-customer or all three and worse.

Both this newspaper and all the others give NZ regular negative coverage. Let's have a look: Just from June, there's this piece denouncing a failed marketing campaign, this piece criticising fare levels, and this piece outlining NZ's recent slip in rankings.

Still want to claim bias towards NZ?

The references you give carry weight, so I am willing to withdraw the accusation against the paper in general;

...less so against the OP in particular.
Either I'm thinking of a different web-site but stuff.co.nz is owned by......Australians

Reply to post #8 - An article on stuff.co.nz last week stated a rumor was started in Australia that NZ had several damaged and grounded aircraft in both New Zealand and Australia as a result of the ash. NZs CEO hinted that he believed the rumor came from QF. QF responded that they basically don't know whats Mr Fyfe's talking about


User currently offlineagent99nzboi From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 37 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3332 times:

Surely If a PIC deemed it unsafe to fly, they wouldnt fly?

and with ops relaying the information that NZ has been gathering to Pilots from which they are able to adjust their flightplans then they will fly?

To claim NZ is "unsafe" would be feeble.

Rob Fyfe has also confirmed that there has been no damage to any aircraft due to the ash.

JQ/QF made a blanket decision to Cx their flights in effected areas, all they have done is lose market share.




777ER:
Correct, stuff.co.nz is part of Fairfax Media, an Australian company.

[Edited 2011-06-30 00:28:06]

25 truemanQLD : You say it as though QF did. I find it hard to beleive QF would play such childish games like rumour spreading! And keep passengers safe. I personall
26 kiwiandrew : Please make your mind up, in one sentence you have alleged that there was "a great risk" involved, and in the next you say "I am not saying NZ is uns
27 aerorobnz : No they haven't All their passengers rebooked on NZ/EK and all the other carriers SQ/CX/KE/BI etc that are still operating - so the passengers are no
28 777ER : Just repeating what was said on stuff.co.nz
29 Post contains links 777ER : Heres the stuff.co.nz article http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indu...and-hits-back-at-malicious-rumours
30 EDICHC : Here you are stating QF were not flying as it was unsafe to do so and again suggesting indirectly here... Followed by this confusing debating message
31 truemanQLD : Again, QF didnt rebook the passengers. QF gave them a refund and they chose to book on those airlines. QF can hardly keep there money and prevent the
32 Post contains images danfearn77 : Ahhh ok I understand you now thanks for the clarification!
33 Post contains images EDICHC : I guess I don't need any qualifications to support my argument as the absence of any in flight emergencies attributable to the ash cloud would be evi
34 Airvan00 : QF/JQ were not grounded by cash. On the days the designated area was to the west of MEL, QF9 (MEL-LHR) departed east and flew over Mallacoota then eas
35 aerorobnz : Given that all carriers that have been operating have checked before and after every flight for ash and have not found any sign of ash let alone dama
36 Post contains images Airvan00 : Check your facts. The only advisory effecting AUS or NZ was the one issued by Wellington VACC for the period up till 010000Z and that was for FL200 t
37 EDICHC : And once again how many problems did NZ encounter on their services from Oz to CHC? Evidently you did not see the irate and perplexed tourists from U
38 truemanQLD : And NZ does? I agree QF has had a bad run in recent years, but a repeat of the BA flight would be bad no matter what airline
39 texan : There was no risk to safety at the altitudes flown. The ash and operations were both closely monitored. The only risk either airline took was economi
40 Mr AirNZ : Guess which airline QF/JQ booked staff on to get them home or to duties as a result of disruptions/cancellations caused by the cloud.........
41 aerokiwi : Ha! Oh dear. I wonder if it was a situation whereby JQ cancelled for financial reasons, and QF got caught having to follow its LCC's lead or risk hav
42 truemanQLD : Or they could have deemed it was too unsafe for them to fly... again I dont see why this has to be made a big conspiracy...
43 avrich : Not correct. QF have been paxing AKL based long haul crew on NZ. NZ will be the long the long term winner here. Allot of AU based long haul pax who w
44 aerokiwi : Because it doesn't make sense to most people, especially with the plethora of excuses from JQ in New Zealand (the Boeings can fly but Airbuses cannot
45 Airvan00 : This whole thread is like the little boy told by an adult not to jump into the lake because it is shallow. He does and survives and is not a quadriple
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Inter Colombia Fleet Grounded For Not Paying Debt. posted Fri Jun 11 2004 00:20:07 by SOUTHAMERICA
LHR QF Disruptions - Aircraft Resources posted Mon Dec 20 2010 10:20:11 by richardw
Aircraft Grounded Away From Hub posted Sat Apr 17 2010 10:17:49 by louA340
Tiger - Desperate Bid For Cash posted Tue Jan 5 2010 20:54:29 by Jetfuel
Heathrow Are Drilling For Baggage Not Oil posted Fri Jan 1 2010 10:12:42 by Glom
Allegiant Purchases 2 More MD-83s For Cash posted Tue Nov 17 2009 11:24:03 by FATFlyer
QF A380 Passengers Stranded For 26 Hours In SYD? posted Mon Oct 12 2009 23:19:17 by Springbok747
EK Aircraft Changes For SYD, SFO posted Fri Aug 7 2009 08:03:06 by EmiratesUK
JQ Considering Yped For International Flights posted Mon Jun 15 2009 18:53:05 by QFMel
QF To Charge People For Exit Row Seats posted Mon May 25 2009 15:43:27 by Trent1000